利丰哈佛商学院案例中文版
案例利丰
2、利丰经销
利丰（经销）有限公司（简称“利丰经销”）成立于 1998年，由利丰集团和其他四家金融投资机构所组 成，利丰经销还收购了英之杰在亚太地区的市场推广 及相关业务。利丰经销的核心业务是为世界各地的
品牌产品在亚太地区提供批发经销一站式的代 理服务，包括生产制造、品牌推广、营销渠道管理
乃至物流配送等各种组合。2002年，利丰经销获Best Practice Management集团颁发的“最佳业务实践—— 供应链整合”。
利丰经销在泛亚地区运用供应链管理的概念，为客户提供 全面的服务。利丰经销通过生产、物流和销售三方面业 务的组合，合理配置资源，为代理的产品提供一站式的 配套生产、市场推广和物流服务。这种组合使利丰经销 的竞争优势可以朝着新的方式发展，提升效率和创造价
值，并完善供应链各环节中的增值服务，从而更直接地
一、利丰业务：出口贸易、经销批发和零售
20世纪70年代，利丰业务的经营和管理传至 冯家族的第三代，即冯国经博士和冯国纶博士。
经过100年及三代管理层的刻意经营，利丰 集团已经演变成为国际性大型跨国商贸集团； 经营出口贸易、经销批发和零售三大核心业务。 业务网络遍布全球40多个国家和地区，聘用 员工超过13000名，年营业额超过50亿美元。
三、研究价值：利丰供应链管理创新的特点
世界著名的《财富》杂志评选的全球最佳创意、 最具有竞争力公司，整个亚洲只有15个，香 港只有两个，它不是和记黄埔、也不是新鸿 基地产，而是很多人还不熟悉但是是香港最 大的贸易公司利丰集团和ESPRIT公司。其中 利丰集团的的供应链管理颇具研究价值。
1、真正的客户导向
1、利丰贸易
利丰集团的贸易业务（即上市公司利丰有限公司， 简称“利丰贸易”）是集团中历史最攸久和最重要的 部分，从事消费产品的出口，以美国、欧洲和日本 为主要出口市场，采购基地主要集中在亚洲。采购 出口类别以成衣为主，同时还包括时尚饰物、家 具、礼品、手工艺品、家居用品、玩具、运动及旅 行用品等一系列产品。
(美国哈佛工商管理学院案例).doc
(美国哈佛工商管理学院案例)巴科投影仪系列(A)---全球利基营销一、背景1989年9月23日星期六的早上，迪乔, 克林波,和德森三人一起在讨论一份重要计划的陈述书，迪乔将在下星期一向巴科(Barco.N.V.)公司的董事会陈述计划的内容与理由。
作为巴科公司的高级副总裁和首席营运执行官，迪乔同时也领导巴科公司视频投影系统部的工作。
目前，迪乔必须对近来竞争对手所作出的营销变化制定相应的对策，因为这已经影响到巴科公司视频投影系统部的销售。
克林波是巴科公司视频投影系统部的总经理。
德森负责管理巴科公司的分销机构和在全球视频投影设备市场营销活动的协调。
他们正与迪乔密切合作共同制定公司的对策。
一个月前，索尼公司波士顿SigGraph交易会上推出的1270超级数据型投影仪令巴科公司和这一领域的其他同行大为吃惊。
尽管该行业中最好的产品是巴科公司生产的BG400投影仪，但索尼公司的这一产品在该交易会上大出风头。
更为严重的是，据传索尼公司将在展示价格的基础上对1270型产品再次进行幅度达20%-40%的降价。
整个行业都把索尼公司的1270型产品看作是借低价格来占领市场的一次企图。
对巴科公司这样一个相对小批量的公司来说，集优良性能和低廉价格于一身的1270型产品将对公司现有市场份造成严重的威胁，并会导致公司被迫将产品价格降至无法接受的地步。
迪乔预计巴科公司的视频投影部将因此而减少1990财政年度的75%利润。
行业中最重要的InfoComm交易会将于1990年1月在美国举行，届时，市场的主要用户、行业分析家、分销商都将光临参观洽谈，巴科公司的行为将决定公司在这一财政年度的剩余时间的销售业绩。
迪乔、克林波、德森已经计划了公司的产品定价和新产品开发的不同方案，但是他们仍然必须为制定公司随后几个月的营销战略而仔细地权衡每一个细节。
二、巴科公司的视频投影系统部门(BPS)BPS是巴科公司的第二大产品部门，成立于1980年，拥有350名雇员和3470万美元的年收入(1988年)。
哈佛商学院MBA案例教程 人员管理 摩托罗拉
哈佛商学院MBA案例教程人员管理摩托罗拉年大计培训为本一直被视为世界无线通讯巨人的美国摩托罗拉公司，支配世界无线通讯市场已有多年历史。
"摩托罗拉"这个集合了汽车与音响的名字，蕴含着1930年公司生产出第一台汽车收音机的起步历史，从30年代的车载通讯、到二战美国步兵的无线对讲，直到今天的宇航通讯，摩托罗拉的"移动之声"已创造了10亿美元的年利润。
1993年，近10万员工的摩托罗拉公司销售总额达170亿美元，比上一年激增28%，利润更是上升了77%。
通讯器材与半导体是摩托罗拉的两大支柱。
全球范围内以摩托罗拉为品牌的移动电话拥有高达40%的占有率，此外在电话交换机、警用无线电话、特殊宇宙无线电话等方面也享有极高的声誉。
在半导体方面，摩托罗拉每年的营业收入均在57亿美元左右，仅次于英特尔及日本的NEC公司，位居全球第三。
那么这家为美国人带来"美国荣耀"的电子高科技公司是采取什么样的秘诀和策略，在当今竞争日益残酷的国际市场上取胜的呢?一、推陈出新竞争优势在总结是什么因素使摩托罗拉在竞争激烈的高科技电子产业中出类拔萃时，该公司的高层管理人员归纳出以下至关重要的三点：1.不断推出让顾客惊讶的新商品。
为此，公司在科研方面进行持续性投资，以巩固研究开发最新产品的基础。
2.新商品的开发必须注意到速度与时效问题，技术性商品的生命周期较短，因此在开发速度上不能落后。
3.以顾客为导向，在质量管理上务求完美，将顾客的不满减少到零为止。
电子高科技产业竞争的激烈程度并不亚于一般传统产业，摩托罗拉长期培养出来的竞争优势在于：首先是在整个企业的运转过程中拥有学习曲线效果，有效降低制造成本，以成本为领导的形势竞逐市场；其次是高度重视研究发展投资，从新技术中率先创造出差异化的新产品，领先上市，进而抢占市场，摩托罗拉1993年在研究开发上的投资高达15亿美元，几乎占其营业额的9%，这么大的研发投资，在美国企业中也是较为少见的；最后是重视员工的教育训练，由人的改革做起。
哈佛商学院的经典商业成功案例
精品合同，仅供参考，需要可下载使用！哈佛商学院的经典商业成功案例:海底捞海底捞的速度不算快，从1994年创办，到现在整整十七个年头，才60个连锁店，营业额也就十几亿。
海底捞所在的产业一点都不酷，就是火锅，它既不是资源垄断行业，也不是高科技行业，只要是中国人，自己在家都会涮。
海底捞的商业模式并不独特，就是一锅一锅卖、一店一店开。
海底捞的创始人张勇，今年刚好四十岁，是个出身底层的“川娃子”，不擅豪言壮语，不帅、肤色黑，比实际年龄看起来老得多。
既如此，我们为什么要将海底捞搬上封面？这是一个关于“人”的故事。
有人说，如果把海底捞搬到日本或者韩国，它的优势就荡然无存。
但是，日式或者韩式服务舶来已久，中国企业只习得其“变态”之形式，未习得“变态”背后的精髓。
服务者感到耻辱，接受服务者也觉得别扭，原因在于那些标准化的流程移植到中国，其他方的满意往往是建立在员工不满意基础上的。
技校毕业的张勇，发迹在偏僻的四川简阳，一切经验都摸索自简陋的麻辣烫店。
他的逻辑很简单：“公平”。
这词一点都不陌生，向来是人心最普通、却殊难成真的诉求之一。
一旦把这简单口号贯彻到底，员工就会视海底捞为第二个家，为之真心付出，甚至为这个家拼命。
海底捞出色的服务就是这么来的。
就这样，海底捞在海外虽然一家店都没有，却成为哈佛商学院经典案例。
海底捞员工与富士康员工来自同一群体，主体是80后或90后，在农村长大、家境不好、读书不多、见识不广、背井离乡、受人歧视、心理自卑。
而且相比富士康的环境，在海底捞工作的待遇更低、地位更低、劳动强度更大。
可张勇就是做到了，员工没有跳楼，还能主动、愉悦地为客人服务。
中国近代商业文明最好的传统之一，是较为注重“家庭感”，管理制度也会朝这个方向设计。
可近三十年来，经济高速发展，机会喷涌而出，这一传统却产生了断裂。
张勇无意中接续了断层，他不懂平衡计分卡，不懂KPI，甚至不采用利润考核，但却创造出让管理专家们叫绝的家庭式管理制度。
荟智案例利丰集团从一家传统贸易商成功转型为以供应链管理概念运作的现代跨国贸易集团
荟智案例利丰集团从一家传统贸易商成功转型为以供应链管理概念运作的现代跨国贸易集团♥整体供应链管理！这是一家香港甚至世界范围内商贸业的一个著名创新企业。
没有厂房、仓库、运输工具，也没有任何垄断权力，凭借着复合型的知识和人才、规范的工作流程、良好的商誉，为客户管理着采购、分销、物流、信息、在途资金等各种重要环节，并以这样的服务获取着稳定的回报和快速的成长。
它独具特色的全球供应链管理，更使其四度成为哈佛商学院MBA的教学案例，其当家人冯国经、冯国纶兄弟，被称为“亚洲最有头脑的商人”,这家企业就是利丰集团。
利丰集团从一家传统贸易商成功转型为以供应链管理概念运作的现代跨国贸易集团。
多年的企业实际运作经验，使利丰集团对供应链管理有深刻而独到的理解。
利丰以客户的需求为中心，为客户提供有效的产品供应，达到“为全世界消费者提供合适、合时、合价的产品”的目标。
1利丰集团的业务转变之路1、采购代理利丰贸易成立之初，充当客户和供应商之间的建议中介人角色，仅作为沟通的桥梁。
2、采购公司该阶段，利丰贸易扮演一家采购公司即地区性的货源代理商的角色，通过在亚洲的不同地区，如中国大陆、中国台湾、韩国和新加坡开设办事处来拓展业务。
3、无疆界生产该阶段，利丰贸易从采购公司变成了无疆界生产的计划管理者与实施者，接受客户的初步概念，如产品的外形、颜色和质量方面的要求，再由利丰贸易为客户指定一个完整的生产计划。
4、虚拟生产该阶段，利丰贸易直接充当客户供货商的角色，直接与客户签订采购合同，是客户的直接供货商，但利丰依然没有工厂，生产任务以外包的形式交给工厂进行，它负责统筹并密切参与整个生产流程，从事一切从产品设计、采购、生产管理与控制、物流与航运等其他支持性的工作。
5、整体供应链管理在虚拟生产模式的基础上，为了整条供应链的运作更加合理和流畅，利丰贸易开发了一系列更全面的供应链服务，包括监管一系列进出口清关手续和当地物流安排。
利丰贸易实行多样化的业务模式，包含作为代理商和直接供货商的业务，以客户为中心，根据客户需求的具体要求，提供以客户为导向的服务。
哈佛商学院《完美的绩效》案例分析
“完美的绩效”案例分析1.案例内容关键点梳理：●蓝巴雷公司主营生产多种耐用消费品，一年前面临业绩滑坡的局面●海勒姆一年前加盟，为首席财务官（CFO）兼首席行政官（CAO），感到凭自己一个人的力量已经扭转了公司的乾坤，推行新的绩效管理体系。
●一系列操作之后取得的成绩：劳动力成本的大幅下降、客户服务的改进、销售佣金结构和奖励方式的变化带来的巨大成效，各种数据都显示公司的各项业绩已经得到了飞跃。
●CEO：赞扬了海勒姆的工作，认为在成本削减和经营效率有成效。
●人力资源副总裁：专门做了一个员工问卷调查，结果显示出员工满腹牢骚，研发部门的士气低落，新产品由于海勒姆推出的僵硬的预算程序，没能及时推出市场；许多人对公司裁员采取“一刀切”的方式表示不满，因为绩效最高的部门被迫解雇了公司一些最优秀的员工。
销售部门态度消极，存在无人带教和销售资源分配不均的问题。
●首席法律顾问：公司研发部门正在申请专利的许多产品没有商业可行性。
●客户反映：货物不能按时送达，问题得不到及时解决。
首先，海勒姆的工作确实对公司业绩的提升是卓有成效的，这点毋庸置疑。
其次，推行新的绩效体系存在较多问题，没有考虑到组织中高层、中层、基层的接受程度，疏于与各部门的沟通，甚至缺乏对一线的调研和市场了解，过多的衡量“硬性”的业绩指标，忽略了“软”的因素，如团队文化、无边际协作等等；同时公司分权、授权问题，财务总监和行政总监合并为一人管理，还具体负责销售业绩，在现代企业几乎是不可能的。
但由于案例篇幅的限制和对实际工作经验的反思，我们认为这个案例并不只是改进绩效方案、加强团队协作、制定合理目标、供应商管理等方面的问题，这里忽略了大量的前提和存在诸多“怪象”，因为在不同的企业战略、供需结构、市场竞争等情况的影响下，对于蓝巴雷公司和海勒姆，最后的决策和选择应不尽相同，甚至“背道而驰”。
需要考虑的前提：●蓝巴雷公司所在的是蓝海市场还是红海市场？●蓝巴雷公司的战略到底是什么？预期要达到的市场占有度要做到多少？一年前业绩下滑到什么程度，公司调整绩效体系的核心目标工作是什么？●海勒姆本人的职业生涯如何？在此方面是否具备一定的实践经验基础？是否真的存在“空降兵”问题？●以往的绩效体系是考核什么的？销售渠道就是以业绩说话，为什么就特然间不适应了？案例存在如下诸多“怪象”：●HR副总通过“问卷”的形式调研出员工普遍不满，一方面问卷在设置和报告上就容易存在“猫腻”，更重要的，一个普遍负面情绪较多、消极情绪充斥的组织，却在短时间使业绩飞跃，在一个以渠道销售为主的行业，恕我们见闻浅薄，是小概率事件。
哈佛商学院三一案例
哈佛商学院三一案例哈佛商学院9-513-58修改：2013年1月2日RAJIVLALSTEFAN LIPPERTNANCY HUA DAIDI DENG三一：走向全球2012年4月17日对三一集团和它的创始人梁稳根而言都是一个特别的日子。
二十年来，总部设在长沙的三一集团已经从1989年的一个小焊接材料厂转化为一个全球领先的建筑设备制造商：它在中国建有五大产业基地；并在美国、德国、巴西、印度和印度尼西亚相继投资建设了五个工程机械研发制造基地；在全世界有21个销售公司。
（参考附录1：三一集团的子公司；附录2：三一的产品线。
）三一集团的主要子公司，三一重工有限公司（“三一”）从事建筑设备业务并在《国际建筑》杂志2012年黄表（世界最大的建筑设备制造商排名）上名列第六位。
（参考附录3：黄表名单。
）在这个重大的日子里，三一完成了对世界领先的德国混凝土机械制造商普茨迈斯特控股有限公司（“普茨迈斯特”）的收购。
普茨迈斯特的创始人卡尔·施莱西特指出，这是中国企业第一次收购德国著名的中型工业公司。
他把这个合并描述为获得业界正面认可的“中德之间的示范性交易”。
大多数中国媒体欢迎这个交易，但是为数不多的几家媒体对与外国公司的合并表示了担心，因为过去几乎没有中国公司成功过。
德国媒体的报道是中性、客观和平衡的。
在2009年被中国超过之前德国是第一出口国。
中国认为经济的全球化对本国有利。
因表了最有吸引力的增长机会。
2011年诺兰德.伯格与关键市场中的50个行业专家进行了访谈，在基础上的市场调查显示非洲和中东正变得更引人瞩目（参考附录5：建筑设备行业最有吸引力的地区）。
由于引擎和输送线在燃油效率和降低排放上的作用，调查参与者认为它们是最能区分各产品的关键组件。
尽管各地区对它们重要性的排名并不相同，质量、价格与替代零部件的可得性是市场最看重的因素（参考附录6：产品特征在各地区的排名）。
除了不同的设备，租赁和售后服务对消费者也很重要。
服装运营模式之利丰模式
劳动分工和机械力的出现促使单件家 庭制作到服装工业化生产。我国现在 的服装生产企业主要分为两类。随着 经济水平的提高，各行业的竞争也越 演越烈，很多新的运营方式也随着国 际化全球化的趋势应运而生，如利丰 运营模式。
利丰集团简介
利丰集团是一家以香港为基地的大型跨国商 贸集团，经营出口贸易 经销批发和零售三大 业务。是从传统的华资贸易商转型为运用供 应链管理概念来统筹生产和流通的跨国企业。 它主要充当一个网络协调员的角色。
利丰的运营模式
利丰贸易的业务是在劳动力成本与生产能力存在 国际差异的背景下产生的。作为网络协调员，利 丰关注通过网络设计最可行的流程，以便在最合 适的时间以最合适的价格将正确的产品送到正确 的地点。协调员的能力在于发掘潜力，创造网络 协调所有个体因素，确保整个流程的成功。现如 今，竞争对手从某种程度上说已不简单的是公司 与公司间的竞争，更主要的是公司后面的供应链 网络的竞争。
利丰模式优点
一、利丰公司的供应链管理强调了真正的客户 导向
二、强调了企业核心内容要素的组合，其供应 链管理思想就是企业核心能力要素组合优化的 最佳实践。
三、将最先进的供应链管理思想运用到管理 实践，对延迟制造的运用，它充分利用自己的 网络和战略合作关系要求生产企业预留生产能 力以实现该目标。
利丰的运营模式优点
四、其大公司规模和小公司运作的思路更堪称 一绝：所有的部门就是一个独立的公司，他们 可以自己像一个老板一样经营自己的事业但是 有可以得到大公司的支持。 小结：它体现了一系列最先进的战略逻辑：交 集、系统化和能力要素优化。
几种营运模式的比较
益达：拥有涉及服装的所有工厂。有用一个垂直整合的 供应链，在该模式中网络协作处于最小化，业务由内部 管理。这种管理缺少灵活性
哈佛商学院MBA经典案例--中国饰品市场分析及竞争策1
MBA案例之中国饰品市场分析及竞争策略（中）二、中国饰品市场流行趋势分类饰品厂商所要追求的是什么？是产品的市场。
而如何能够占领市场呢？那就意味着我们必须了解饰品市场的流行趋势，准确掌握消费者的动向。
1、复古高端的复古如周生生设计繁华,加入怀旧元素,如十八世纪拜占廷的典型色彩,或十六世纪裙边设计，造型华丽，重重叠叠，充满魅力。
色彩高雅，材质高贵，使用各色的宝石，钻石，铂金，做工精细,可使用单一材质精雕细琢,也可使用不同色彩的材质进行镶拼,如蓝宝石与水钻,铂金的镶拼。
低端的复古,如海盗船造型相对简练，做工也没有高端那么精细,但仍然强调怀旧的设计元素,如繁复的花纹,令人怀旧的材质，如琥珀、古典宝石头饰。
代表产品：秀秀复古头饰、鬓夹介绍：蝴蝶的美丽色彩，繁复的装饰花纹，与古典的宝石一起营造怀旧的感觉。
2、简约设计简练流畅,具现代感，色彩通常较为素雅,可为银饰，铂金或素色珍珠。
由于设计简约，因而适合与各类休闲服饰搭配，适配性强。
代表产品：朴秀秀水晶头饰、朴秀秀珍珠发夹3、民族设计具有浓重的民俗气息,会加入典型的代表元素，如印度或地中海地区的图案花纹和图腾。
色彩丰富，体现民族风情,款式繁多，会出现夸张造型。
材质多为自然类，如木材、竹、藤、石头等，适合与各类民俗服饰或休闲服饰搭配。
代表产品：朴秀秀民族风情挂饰介绍：明亮的蓝如同清澈的湖水，流行世界的中国风与韩国风情装饰完美结合。
特色的民族饰品饱涵着美丽的情结，不禁放飞快乐的心情。
4、自然大量使用自然界中的元素,如花卉、蝴蝶、蜻蜓、大海、水滴等成为设计的流行图案。
色彩为自然色泽，如花朵的颜色、树的颜色、海浪的颜色、动物和虫鱼的天然色彩。
材质也是来自自然如水晶、琥珀、贝壳等。
代表产品：秀秀水晶项链、秀秀琉璃项链5、时尚在经典设计中加入时尚元素,设计体现为与服饰流行趋势的吻合；造型时尚,比如珍珠的串法以及宝石的镶嵌方法都会挑战传统，材质新颖,会使用彩色珍珠，彩色水晶，彩色宝石等以前较少使用的材质，出现新的时尚产品,如手机链。
哈佛商学院苹果案例分析
哈佛商学院苹果案例分析第一篇：哈佛商学院苹果案例分析哈佛商学院苹果案例分析（3）Spindler和Amelio时期，1993—1997作为苹果的掌门人，Spindler努力让苹果在其核心市场恢复生气（reinvigorate）:教育和桌面排版，苹果在这两个领域分别占据60%和80%的市场份额。
同时，Spindler扼杀（kill the plan）了在英特尔芯片上运行Mac操作系统的计划，并宣布苹果将授权少量(a handful of)公司复制Mac系统。
这些公司将为每一个复制品付约50美元。
在Spindler时期，国际市场的增长成为一个重要目标。
（在1992年，45%的销售来自海外市场。
）Spindler也在寻求减少成本（slash costs），裁员16%，压低研发成本。
尽管Spindler做出种种努力，苹果还是错过了契机（momentum）：《Computerworld》在1995年对140个公司买家进行了调查，结果显示，没有一家Windows用户会考虑用Mac，而超过一半的苹果用户希望买一台用英特尔处理器的电脑。
（见表4）此外，Spindler和Sculley一样，希望开发一个革命性的新操作系统使公司的情况好转（turn the company around），但是寻求突破的美好愿景（prospect）逐渐消失了（fade）。
在1995年底，苹果和IBM解散Taligent和Kaleida，分道扬镳（part ways），在付出5亿美元后，双方都不想转向新技术。
在1996年第一个财务季度，苹果披露了6900万美元的损失并宣布了进一步的裁员计划。
两周后，一位苹果的主管Gilbert Amelio取代Spindler成为了CEO。
Amelio希望推动苹果进入利润高的领域（segment），例如，服务器、网络接入设备和PDA。
在他履职后不久，他宣称苹果将重返高价的差异化战略。
此外，由于Amelio看到了新操作系统的迫切需求（the pressing need），他取消了搁置已久的新一代操作系统的开发计划。
【供应链管理案例】利丰的全球供应链管理模式
利丰的全球供应链管理模式 目前，国际学术界尚未对供应链概念形成统一的定义。
1989年，美国的史蒂文斯(Stevens)，认为“通过增值过程和分销渠道控制，从供货商的供货商到用户的用户的流就是供应链，它开始于供应的起点，结束于消费的终点”。
1998年，切斯(Chase)等将“供应链管理”定义为：“供应链管理是应用系统的方法来管理从原材料供货商通过工厂和仓库直到最终顾客的整个信息流、物流和服务流的过程。
” 利丰认为：“供应链管理就是把供应链最优化，以最少的成本，令供应链从采购开始，到满足最终顾客的所有流程，包括上述的工作流程、实物流程、资金流程和信息流程，均有效地操作。
”利丰研究中心在《供应链管理：利丰集团的实践经验》中指出：“从各种不同的论述和实践中，我们总结出以下三个方面：(1)供应链由客户(或消费者)需求开始，贯通从产品设计，到原材料供应、生产、批发、零售等过程，中间或经过运输和仓储，把产品送到最终用户的各项业务活动。
(2)供应链的参与者包括企业和企业内的部门单位，供应链是这些单位之间的互动和关系，企业之间要密切企业内部的合作。
(3)供应链的业务过程和操作，可以从工作流程(有研究称为商流，workflow)、实物流程(physicalflow)、信息流程(informationflow)和资金流程(fundsflow)四个方面分析。
供应链的信息流程带动工作流程，工作流程决定实物流程，实物流程反馈为资金流程。
”这段话反映了利丰对供应链的理解。
20世纪90年代以来，越来越多的企业、公司将供应链管理的概念纳入它们的战略议程中，国际上一些着名的大企业，如惠普公司、IBM公司、戴尔计算机公司等，在供应链管理实践中都取得了瞩目的成绩。
在全球范围而言，香港的利丰集团无疑是其中的佼佼者。
美国哈佛商学院就对利丰的供应链管理实践做了多个商业案例分析，《哈佛商业评论》称利丰的供应链管理为“香港风格的供应链管理”，具有“快捷、全球化和创业精神”。
哈佛商学院MBA案例全书正文
哈佛商学院MBA案例全书前言（于2006年8月11日）哈佛大学是美国最古老、最著名的大学。
哈佛大学生创建300多年以来，为美国以及世界培养了无数的政治家、科学家、作家、学者。
哈佛大学之所以高踞当今世界大学之颠，是与她杰出的教学方法与辉煌的教育成就分不开的，ABC著名电视评论员乔。
莫里斯在哈佛350周的年校庆时曾这样说道：“一个曾培养了6位美国总统、33位诺贝尔奖获得者，32位普利策奖获得者，数十家跨国公司总裁的大学，她的影响足可以支配这个国家。
哈佛大学是辉煌的，但大学中的哈佛商学院更令人称道。
美国教育界有这么流传一个说法：哈佛大学可算是全美所有大学中的一项王冠，而王冠上那夺目的赛宝珠，就是哈佛商学院。
建校79年的哈佛商学院（Harvard Business School,简称，HBS）是美国培企业人才的最著名的学府，被美国人称为是商人、主管、总经理的西点军校，美国许多大企业家和政治家都在这里学习过。
在美国500家最大的公司里担任最高职位的经理中，有1/5毕业于这所学院。
哈佛工商管理硕士学位（Master of Business Administration 简称MBA）成了权力与金钱的象征，成了许多美国青年梦寐以求的学位。
哈佛商学院是一个制造“职业老板”的“工厂”，哈佛的MBA人人都疯狂地关心企业的成长和利润，他们有着极强的追求成功的冲动，和自命不凡的意识，他们是商业活动中的职业杀手。
MBA平均年薪可达10万美金以上，以致美国人指责MBA的第一条缺点就是他们的身份太高。
哈佛商学院是如今美国最大，最富，最有名望，也是最有权威的管理学校。
HBS的学制为两年，第一学期学习统一的必修课课程，第二学期进入专业课程，近90 年来一概如此。
HBS的课程设置已经成为几乎所有大学的商学院硕士课程参考模式，其校规校纪也为其他学校所模仿。
但是，哈佛商学院的教学计划存在着一个令人奇怪的课。
第一年的课程压得人喘不过气来的紧张，第二年却有点无所事事的轻松。
哈佛商学院经典案例：NCC的困境
哈佛商学院经典案例：NCC RP1工厂的困境东华大学领袖MBA 孙凌云学号：2116071 背景蔓越莓是一种表皮鲜红，生长在矮藤上的小圆果，生长在寒冷的北美湿地，全球产区不到4万英亩，仅限于美国北部的麻萨诸塞、威斯康辛、新泽西、奥瑞冈、华盛顿等五州，加拿大的魁北克、英属哥伦比亚二省，以及南美的智利。
蔓越莓只适合栽种在高酸性沙土中，须经过3-5年栽培，才能长成鲜红的果实。
蔓越莓每年春天播种、秋季收获，采收方法分成“水收”和“干收”两种。
传统的干收方式下，灌木上的果实靠手工采摘。
由于优质的蔓越莓果内含空气，能够浮在水面上,所以也可用水收方式采收，果农先将蔓越莓田注满水，然后开着水车巡回田间打水，等脱落的蔓越莓果浮出水面，再用栏木圈集筛选。
地头采摘的蔓越莓可作鲜果销售，也可进一步加工制作果汁、果酱等产品。
为保证较长的货架期，作为鲜果销售的蔓越莓不能有损伤，所以主要采取干收方式，在地头采摘后仅装收集桶的1/3，且在厂里包装前还要逐粒挑选，鲜果生产是一个劳动密集型的过程。
而用作深加工的果实在采摘后装满桶作大包装运输处理（如每卡车装400桶）。
美国是蔓越莓的生产和消费大国。
蔓越莓(Cranberry)已经和蓝莓、康科特葡萄一起成为美国家庭不可或缺的佐餐佳品及日常饮食伙伴。
美国蔓越莓产业由各类果农合作社掌控，据统计，合作社蔓越莓的年销量占到全美年蔓越莓总销量的99%强。
表A反映了1945～1980年美国蔓越莓产业的产销情况，数据反映出蔓越莓产业的一些趋势，其中最为显著的趋势就是日益增长的富余量---即蔓越莓的总产量与使用量之间的差额。
富余量的增加直接导致果农在1978年请求美国农业部启动农业市场协议第1937条款。
该条款规定：“如果联邦政府和2/3以上的果农同意作物限制的话，果农就有权调整和控制作物的种植面积”。
1978年87%的蔓越莓果农投票通过决议，6年内不得扩大蔓越莓的种植面积以维护蔓越莓产业的市场秩序。
哈佛商学院_新世纪金融公司案例
哈佛商学院9 - 1 09- 034修改：200 9年10月14日K R IS HN A PALE PUSU RAJ SR IN IVA S A N AL D O SESI A J R .新世纪金融公司新世纪肆无忌惮地沉迷于增加贷款发行，毫不在意这种商业战略带来的风险……新世纪贷款发行越来越高的风险产生了一个定时炸弹，它终于在2007年爆炸。
—破产调查官最终报告，2008年2月29日2005年初，新世纪金融公司（“新世纪”）飞得正高。
这家公司在10年前成立，此时已经成为美国最大的次级贷款发行人之一，它的股价达到历史最高，2004年每股收益比2002年高出80%。
但是仅仅15个月后，新世纪就遭遇了清算危机。
2006年11月，泰基.宾卓成为新世纪新任CFO，一个月后，他开始询问有关公司按揭贷款回购储备的问题。
2007年2月，公司宣布，由于和按揭贷款回购责任相关的会计错误，它需要重新报告2006财年前三季度的财务数字。
这个消息促使新世纪的贷款人开始要求增加保证金并拒绝为它提供任何新的融资。
3月，管理层宣布公司已经停止接受按揭贷款申请并将不能按时发布它2006年的年报。
2007年4月2日，新世纪申请第11章破产保护。
美国次贷行业──1990年代早期到2008年在1990年代初，次贷只占美国全部按揭贷款数量和金额的一小部分。
但是到2005年，次贷借款已经变成一个6,250亿美元的行业，占全部按揭贷款的20%。
仅在新千年，次贷从2001到2006年增长了216% （参看附录1）。
虽然次贷有不同的定义，它通常被认为是向FICO 信用纪录低于620的个人发放的贷款；换句话说，它是向信用纪录不够申请优质按揭贷款的人发放的贷款。
（FICO是Fair Isaac Corporation的缩写，这家公司制作了用以衡量个人信用水平的评分系统。
FICO分数的范围是300到850。
）通常情况下，由于次贷借款人有更高的违约风险，他们支付的利率比优质贷款要高200到300个基点（一个基点是1%的1%，300个基点就是3%），而且要交更高的初始贷款申请费。
一份来自哈佛商学院的教学案例
一份来自哈佛商学院的教学案例一份来自哈佛商学院的教学案例Babolat公司与纳达尔签订的合同创造了网坛价值最高的球拍赞助神话，与此同时，纳达尔使用的Babolat Aeropro却创造了一项销售神话，这款球拍提前18个月完成预定的销售额。
Eric Babolat今年才38岁，是Babolat公司的第五任继承人。
他的家族企业Babolat公司总部设在法国。
Eric的祖父曾经营乐器弦，并在1877年创立了全法国第一家肠线企业。
从那个时候起，babolat公司注定在天然肠线领域有着绝对的市场统治力，大部分选手都会选择使用。
Babolat公司在球弦方面有这样的要求，不与任何球员签订广告合同，并且只会把球弦免费赠送给为数不多的球星(桑普拉斯是其中很少的一位可以免费享有球弦的球员)。
在球弦领域的巨大成功也使得他们想进军球拍领域有了一个很好的铺垫。
大约在14年前，他的父亲Pierre Babolat决定开始制造球拍。
那个时候球网球市场处于低潮期，球拍生产又几乎被Head、Prince、Wilson三家大型制造商垄断，Wilson是这个行业的领头羊，差不多占有30%的市场份额，它可以进入大型卖场，比如沃尔玛，但是其他品牌却被拒绝进入，大多数人认为Pierre Babolat肯定是疯了。
Babolat会告诉你他们成功的秘诀就是他们专利的Woofer技术，它可以让球在弦上停留更久的时间，从而给予了像蹦床一样的弹力。
另外他们用清晰和与众不同的简单线条装饰球拍，每款球拍的外形都十分亮丽。
从2000年babolat在美国出售Pure Drive系列球拍开始到2006年销售额达到了一亿一千七百万美金再到拥有16%的网球市场分额。
在短短的几年里，EricBabolat在做一件事情，让有前途的年轻选手尽可能早地使用babolat球拍，随着排名上升，他们就越有可能一直使用你们的球拍。
接下来，业余选手也会注意到他们所喜爱的运动员使用的球拍，并且通常购买与之相应的业余版本的球拍(职业选手的球拍很少在商店里面零售，通常都是定制自己球拍)。
哈佛第一案例
哈佛第一案例：登山还是救人有一支登山队在登中国的喜玛拉雅山，登到一半的时候，发现了一支登山队遗留下的一名奄奄一息的队员，这时这支登山对的队长需要做一个决定：我们这十几人走到半山腰了，是把这个人抬下去，破坏我们登山队的计划，还是把这个人放在这儿？因为这个人又不是我们队的。
这个故事非常形象，一个企业往前冲的时候，必然要遇到一些道德和社会责任问题，你作为一个总裁，你该做什么决策？你完全可以说我牺牲这个团队的目标来拯救这个队员，把他抬到山下，咱们从头再来。
这个故事在哈佛商学院是个经典故事，每一届的学生在第一个学期要听这个故事，每个新生第一个星期要谈的也是这个故事。
你如何分析讨论这个案例？选择——A:判断他是不是能够支撑到下山，是不是值得营救？如果不值得营救，当然是选择继续登山。
如果值得营救：队长决定营救，全体投入营救工作。
B:队长决定营救，在队中征集志愿者，其余继续登山C:队长决定派两名队员负责营救，其余继续登山。
D:队长不发表意见，请大家举手表决，是否营救。
E:队长决定不营救，全体继续登山。
F:队长决定不营救，队中想营救的自发营救，其余跟队长登山。
G:队长决定抬着他一同上山。
H:天赐良机，队长决定中止登山，组织救援，联系媒体，同步报道，制造舆论，提高知名度。
分析——选A，有领导魅力，但是计划性不强，较武断固执——因为道义（干扰因素）而全盘推翻既定计划，不适合做领导，适合做慈善家。
选B，果断，较民主，计划性不强，团队精神不强——因为道义（干扰因素）而推翻部分计划，非能成大事着所为，成就不会太大。
选C，果断，头脑冷静，但计划性不强。
如救人和登山都成功，两全其美，大家欢喜；如救人和登山都失败，我也尽到了义务，无可指责。
凡事以逃避责任为先，完成事业为次，吃得开，坐得稳，虽仕途顺利，难成大业。
选D，民主，头脑冷静，计划性较强，具备管理才能——遇事头脑冷静，不受干扰，计划根据民意而定，适合做政治家。
选E，果断，计划性强，控制能力强——只顾目标不择手段，成大事者也！选F，果断，计划性较强，魄力不足——想两头兼顾，非明智之举，能成小事。
哈佛商学院运营管理案例 The Psychology of Waiting Lines
Harvard Business School9-684-064Rev. May 16, 1984This note was prepared by Associate Professor David H. Maister as the basis for class discussion.Copyright © 1984 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this publication may be repro-duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School. Distributed by HBS Case Services, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163. Printed in U.S.A.The Psychology of Waiting Lines*IntroductionIn one of a series of memorable advertisements for which it has become justly famous, Federal Express (the overnight package delivery service) noted that: “Waiting is frustrating, demoralizing, agonizing, aggravating, annoying, time consuming and incredibly expensive.”1 The truth of this assertion cannot be denied: there can be few consumers of services in a modern society who have not felt, at one time or another, each of the emotions identified by Federal Express’s copywriters. What is more, each of us who can recall such incidents can also attest to the fact that the waiting-line experience in a service facility significantly affected our overall perceptions of the quality of service provided. Once we are being served, our transaction with the service organization might be efficient, courteous and complete: but the bitter taste of how long it took to get attention pollutes the overall judgments that we make about the quality of service.The mathematical theory of waiting-lines (or queues) has received a great deal of attention from academic researchers, and their results and insights have been successfully applied in a variety of settings.2 However, most of this work is concerned with the objective reality of various “queue management” techniques: for example, the effects upon waiting times of adding servers, altering “queue discipline” (the order in which customers are served), speeding up serving times, and so on. What has been relatively neglected is much substantive discussion (at least in management literature) of the experience of waiting.3 Depending on the context, a wait of ten minutes can feel like nothing at all, or it can feel like “forever.” Accordingly, if managers are to concern themselves with how long their customers or clients wait in line for service, then they must pay attention not only to the actual wait times, but also to how these are perceived. They must learn how to influence how the customer feels while waiting.*This note is scheduled to appear as a chapter in J. Czepiel (ed.), The Service Encounter, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1984.1Fortune, July 28, 1980, p. 10.2For an introduction to, and review of, this literature, see any college Operations Management text; e.g., E. S. Buffa, Modern Production/Operations Management (7th Edition), New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.3A notable exception, referred to in the body of the text, is the brief discussion given in Sasser, W. E., Olsen, J. and Wyckoff, D. D., Management of Service Operations: Text, Cases and Readings, New York: Allyn and Bacon, 1979, pp. 88-89. A good summary of the work of psychologists in this area is provided by L. W. Doob, Patterning of Time, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.684-064The Psychology of Waiting Lines In this paper, I shall discuss the psychology of waiting lines, examining how waits are experienced, and shall attempt to offer specific managerial advice to service organizations about how to improve this aspect of their service encounters.The First and Second Laws of ServiceBefore we discuss the laws of waiting, it is necessary to consider two general propositions about service encounters and how these are experienced. The first of these is what I have come to call “The First Law of Service,” expressed as a formula: Satisfaction Equals Perception Minus Expectation. If you expect a certain level of service, and perceive the service received to be higher, you will be a satisfied customer. If you perceive the same level as before, but expected a higher level, you will be disappointed and hence a dissatisfied customer. The point, of course, is that both what is perceived and what is expected are psychological phenomena: they are not reality. Hence, there are two main directions in which customer satisfaction with waits (and all other aspects of service) can be influenced: by working on what the customer expects and what the customer perceives.Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff provide good examples of managing both the perception and the expectation of waiting times. For the former, they offer the example of “the well-known hotel group that received complaints from guests about excessive waiting times for elevators. After an analysis of how elevator service might be improved, it was suggested that mirrors be installed near where guests waited for elevators. The natural tendency of people to check their personal appearance substantially reduced complaints, although the actual wait for the elevators was unchanged.”4 As an illustration of how expectations can be explicitly managed, they note that “some restaurants follow the practice of promising guests a waiting time in excess of the ‘expected time.’ If people are willing to agree to wait this length of time, they are quite pleased to be seated earlier, thus starting the meal with a more positive feeling.”5This last example deserves further exploration. When I have discussed this anecdote with a variety of serving personnel, they always reaffirm its wisdom. As one waiter pointed out to me: “If they sit down in a good mood, it’s easy to keep them happy. If they sit down disgruntled, it’s almost impossible to turn them around. They’re looking to find fault, to criticize.” As a result of these conversations, I offer my Second Law of Service: It’s hard to play catch-up ball. There is a halo effect created by the early stages of any service encounter. Consequently, if money, time and attention are to be spent on improving the experience of service, then the largest payback may well occur in the early stages of the service encounter. In most cases, this will include a waiting experience.The Principles of WaitingHaving established the importance of perceptions and expectations in the experience of waiting, we now turn to a series of propositions about the psychology of queues, each of which can be used by service organizations to influence their customers’ satisfaction with waiting times. These propositions are:1. Unoccupied Time Feels Longer than Occupied Time2. Pre-Process Waits Feel Longer than In-Process Waits3. Anxiety Makes Waits Seem Longer4. Uncertain Waits Are Longer than Known, Finite Waits5. Unexplained Waits Are Longer than Explained Waits6. Unfair Waits Are Longer than Equitable Waits4Ibid., p. 88.5Ibid., p. 89.The Psychology of Waiting Lines684-0647. The More Valuable the Service, The Longer I Will Wait8. Solo Waiting Feels Longer Than Group WaitingWe shall examine each proposition in turn.Proposition 1: Unoccupied Time Feels Longer than Occupied TimeAs William James, the noted philosopher, observed: “Boredom results from being attentive to the passage of time itself.” A more colloquial version might be “A watched pot never boils.” The truth of this proposition has been discovered by many service organizations. In various restaurants, it is common practice to hand out menus for customers to peruse while waiting in line. Apart from shortening the perception of time, this practice has the added benefit of shortening the service time, since customers will be ready to order once they are seated, and will not tie up table space making up their minds. A similar tactic is to turn the waiting area into a bar, which also adds to revenue as well as occupying time. Use can be made of posters, reading material, even shifting lights, rolling balls and other “adult toys” to distract the customer’s attention away from the passage of time. “Theme”restaurants (such as Victoria Station) which provide interesting memorabilia to examine also are applying the lesson of occupying waits as a means of enhancing the service.In some situations, such as telephone waits, it is difficult to “fill up” time in a constructive way. The familiar “muzak” played by some organizations when their telephone-answering agents are busy is, to many people, an added annoyance rather than a benefit. In large part, this is because the activity (listening to music) is totally unrelated to the service activity to come, whereas the use of menus and bars cited above successfully integrated the waiting experience into the total service experience. This suggests that the activity provided to “fill time” should (a) offer benefit in and of itself, and (b) be related, in some way, to the ensuing service encounter. The best example of this I ever encountered in relation to telephone waits was the story of the sports team that, when lines were occupied, played highlights of the previous week’s game. In one memorable incident, a caller was transferred from the queue to the receptionist, whereupon he screamed, “Put me back, (so-and-so) is just about to score!”It should also be noted, however, that there can be circumstances where a service may choose to fill time with an un related activity. In certain medical or dental waiting rooms, there appears to be a conscious attempt to distract the patient’s attention from the forthcoming activity, perhaps on the grounds that to remind the patient of what is about to occur might heighten fears and hence make the wait more uncomfortable. The wisdom of this I cannot attest to (I have read too many National Geographic magazines). Even in this context, it is possible to provide service-related distractions. Many medical clinics provide instructional videotapes, weighing machines and eye charts in the waiting room: I have even seen patients merrily occupied with self-testing thermometers, breath-strength equipment and the like. Time can be occupied not only with distractions, but also with movement. In this regard, it is interesting to recall the difference between the multiple line system at McDonald’s (where each server has a separate line of people waiting) and that at Wendy’s which is a multistage system whereby the first server takes the order, the second prepares the burger, the third the drink, etc. In the former system, where one server handles the total request of each customer, the physical line is shorter, but it moves only sporadically. In the latter system, where each customer is passed through a number of stages, the physical line is longer, but it moves (in smaller steps) more continuously. The customer in the latter situation can see signs of “progress.”A similar attention to the sense of movement can be seen at Disneyland, where the length of the line for a given ride is often “disguised” by bending it around corners so that the customer cannot judge the total length of the line. Because of the rate at which Disney can load people onto the rides, the actual wait is not that long. However, the sight of a large number of people waiting might make it684-064The Psychology of Waiting Lines seem long. By focusing the customers’ attention on the rate of progress rather than the length of the line, the waiting experience is enhanced.Proposition 2: Pre-Process Waits Feel Longer Than In-Process WaitsOne of the other virtues of handing out menus, providing a drinks bar and other methods of service-related time-fillers is that they convey the sense the “service has started: we know that you are here.” People waiting to make their first human contact with the service organization are much more impatient than those who have “begun”: pre-process waits are perceived as longer than in-process waits. One’s “anxiety” level is much higher while waiting to be served than it is while being served, even though the latter wait may be longer. There is a fear of “being forgotten.” (How many times has the reader gone back to a maitre d’ to check that his or her name is still on the list?) Many restaurant owners instruct their service staff to pass by the table as soon as the customers are seated to say “I’ll be with you as soon as I can, after I’ve looked after that table over there.” In essence, the signal is being sent: “We have acknowledged your presence.” This lesson is applied by those mail-order houses that send a quick acknowledgement of an order with the message that “Your order is being processed: expect delivery in 4 to 6 weeks.” Even if the “4 to 6 weeks” message was in the initial advertisement or catalogue (another example of managing expectations), the customer who has sent in a check may well be concerned that the order did not arrive. The acknowledgment of receipt assures the customer that service has begun.One walk-in medical clinic that I studied decided to introduce a triage system, whereby all patients were first met by a nurse who recorded the patient’s name and symptoms and decided whether or not the patient could be treated by a registered nurse practitioner or should be seen by a doctor. Even though the addition of this step in the process had no impact on the time it ultimately took to see a medical service provider (it filled up otherwise unoccupied waiting time), surveys showed that patients were pleased with “reduced waiting times.” The point, of course, was that they felt they had been “entered into” the system.Proposition 3: Anxiety Makes Waits Seem LongerA large part of the concern that we feel to “get started” is due, as noted above, to anxiety. In the cases cited, the anxiety was about whether or not one had been forgotten. Anxiety can, however, come from other sources. Is there anyone who has not had the experience of choosing a line at the supermarket or airport, and stood there worrying that we had, indeed, chosen the wrong line? As we stand there, trying to make up our mind whether to move, our anxiety level increases, and the wait becomes intolerable. This situation is covered by what is known as Erma Bombeck’s Law: “The other line always moves faster.” On a recent (open-seating) Eastern Shuttle flight my fellow passengers formed an agitated queue at the boarding gate long before the flight was due to depart, leading the attendant to announce, “Don’t worry, folks, the plane’s a big one: you’ll all get on.” The change in atmosphere in the waiting lounge was remarkable. Similar efforts to deal with customer anxiety can be seen when airlines make on-board announcements that connecting flights are being held for a delayed flight, when movie theater managers walk down the line reassuring patrons they will get in, when customer service agents in airport lobbies reassure waiting patrons that they are indeed waiting in the correct line, and have sufficient time to catch the plane.One of the poorest examples I know of managing anxiety is when I am on stand-by for a flight, and the agent takes my ticket. Now I am anxious not only about whether I will get on, but also about whether I will get my ticket back. After all, it is transferable and paid for: I have been asked to give up control of the situation. At least if I had my ticket I could change my mind and go to anotherThe Psychology of Waiting Lines684-064 airline. I have never failed to get my standby ticket back, but it makes me anxious to hand it over. Why can’t I just leave my name? The prescription for managers resulting from this discussion is: ask yourself what customers might be worrying about (rationally or irrationally), and find ways to remove the worry.Proposition 4: Uncertain Waits Are Longer than Known, Finite WaitsThe most profound source of anxiety in waiting is how long the wait will be. If I am told that the doctor will be delayed 30 minutes, I experience an initial annoyance but then relax into an acceptance of the inevitability of the wait. However, if I am told he or she will be free soon, I spend the whole time in a state of nervous anticipation, unable to settle in to the book I brought with me, afraid to depart, run some errands and come back. Instead, I sit there wondering “how long is this going to go on?” My expectations are being managed poorly. The pilot who repeatedly announces “only a few more minutes” adds insult to injury when the wait goes on and on. Not only am I being forced to wait, but I am not being dealt with honestly.A good example of the role of uncertainty in the waiting experience is provided by the “appointment syndrome.” Clients who arrive early for an appointment will sit contentedly until the scheduled time, even if this is a significant amount of time in an absolute sense (say, 30 minutes). However, once the appointment time is passed, even a short wait (of, say, 10 minutes) grows increasingly annoying. The wait until the appointed time is finite: waiting beyond that point has no knowable limit. It is notable that appointment systems are, in practice, troublesome queue management tools. They suffer from the problem that some customers may make appointments without showing up, a problem endemic to airlines, hotels, dentists and hair cutters, and also from the fact that it is often difficult to decide how far apart to schedule appointments. If they are too far apart, the server is left idle waiting for the next appointment. If they are too close together, then appointments begin to run behind and, since they cumulate, tend to make the server further and further behind. This is a particularly acute problem since a customer with an appointment has been given a specific expectation about waiting times, and a failure to deliver on this promise makes the wait seem longer than if no appointment had been made. This does not mean that appointment systems should never be used: they are, after all, a way of giving the customer a finite expectation. It should be recognized, however, that an appointment defines an expectation that must be met.Proposition 5: Unexplained Waits Are Longer than Explained WaitsOn a cold and snowy morning, when I telephone for a taxi, I begin with the expectation that my wait will be longer than on a clear, summer day. Accordingly, I wait with a great deal more patience: I understand the causes for the delay. Similarly, if a doctor’s receptionist informs me that an emergency has taken place, I can wait with greater equanimity than if I do not know what is going on. Airline pilots understand this principle well: on-board announcements are filled with references to tardy baggage handlers, fog over Podunk, safety checks and air-traffic controllers’ clearance instructions. The explanation I am given may or may not exculpate the service provider; but it is better than no explanation at all. Most serving personnel will recognize the question, “What’s going on?” It is repeatedly asked in waiting situations. The lack of an explanation is one of the prime factors adding to my uncertainty about the length of the wait. If I know we are delayed due to the need to clear the aircraft, I have a better sense of how long the wait will be than if I am left to fantasize about all the possible causes. However, the length of the wait is not the only reason I wish for an explanation. As the Federal Express advertisement pointed out, waiting, among its other aspects, is demoralizing. Waiting in ignorance creates a feeling of powerlessness, which frequently results in visible irritation and rudeness on the part of customers as they “harass” serving personnel in an684-064The Psychology of Waiting Lines attempt to reclaim their status as paying clients. In turn, this behavior makes it difficult for the serving personnel to maintain their equanimity. (On a significantly delayed flight, one cabin attendant was forced to announce to the passengers: “Please pay us the courtesy of being polite to us so that we can reciprocate in kind.”)Naturally, “justifiable” explanations will tend to soothe the waiting customer more than unjustifiable explanations. A subtle illustration of this is provided by the practice of many fast-food chains who instruct serving personnel to take their rest breaks out of sight of waiting customers. The sight of what seem to be “available” serving personnel sitting idle while customers wait is a source of irritation. Even if such personnel are, in fact, occupied (for example a bank teller who is not serving customers but catching up on paperwork), the sight of serving personnel not actually serving customers is “unexplained”: in the customer’s eyes he or she is waiting longer than necessary. The explanation that the “idle” personnel are “on break” or performing other tasks is frequently less than acceptable.Proposition 6: Unfair Waits Are Longer than Equitable Waits As Sasser, et al, note, one of the most frequent irritants mentioned by guests at restaurants is the prior seating of customers who arrived after the guest. They observe: “The feeling that somebody has successfully ‘cut in front’ of you causes even the most patient customer to become furious. Great care to be equitable is vital.”6In many waiting situations, there is no visible order to the waiting line. In such situations, such as waiting for a subway train, the level of anxiety demonstrated is high, and the group waiting is less a queue than a “mob.” Instead of being able to relax, each individual remains in a state of nervousness about whether their priority in the line is being preserved. As noted above, agitated waits seem longer than relaxed waits. It is for this reason that many service facilities have a system of “taking a number,” whereby each customer is issued a number and served in strict numerical order. In some facilities, the number currently being served is prominently displayed so that customers can estimate the expected waiting times.Such systems can work well in queuing situations where “first in first out” (FIFO) is the appropriate rule for queue discipline. However, such is not always the case. In many situations, customers may be ranked in order of importance, and priorities allocated that way. A good example is a walk-in medical facility which will frequently break the FIFO rule to handle emergency cases. Also familiar is the example of the restaurant that has a finite supply of 2-person, 4-person and large tables, and seats customers by matching the size of the party to the size of the table. A final example is the use of “express checkout” lanes in supermarkets, whereby customers with only a few items are dealt with by a special server. All of these cases represent departures from the FIFO system. In some, the priority rules are accepted by the customers as equitable and observed: for example, the supermarket express checkout. (The wide acceptance of this norm is illustrated by the famous story of the student in Cambridge, Mass. who, with 20 or 30 items, was standing in the “8 items or less” line.A customer standing behind the student observed “You must either be from Harvard and can’t count, or from MIT and can’t read.”) In other illustrations, such as the restaurant with varying sizes of tables, the priority rule that seats customers by size of party is less accepted by the customers, and frequently resented. The rule may serve the restaurant, but the customer has a harder time seeing the equity benefit. Similarly, special service facilities for “important” customers may or may not be “accepted” as equitable. For this reason, many service facilities physically separate “premium”6Ibid., p. 89.The Psychology of Waiting Lines684-064 servers (e.g. First-Class check-in) from the sight of “regular” customers, so they will not resent the special service rendered.A slightly different example of equity problems in queue management is provided by the serving person who is responsible not only for dealing with customers present in the serving facility, but also for answering the telephone. How many of us have not had the experience of waiting while a receptionist answered the phones, and consequently felt a resentment that some “distant” customer was receiving a higher priority than we who have made the effort to come to the service facility? (The example can be extended to those irritating people who answer their office telephone while you are in their office. By answering the phone, they are giving you a lesser priority than the random caller.) The main point to be stressed here is that the customers’ sense of equity is not always obvious, and needs to be explicitly managed. Whatever priority rules apply, the service provider must make vigorous efforts to ensure that these rules match with the customers’ sense of equity, either by adjusting the rules or by actively convincing the client that the rules are indeed appropriate.Proposition 7: The More Valuable the Service, the Longer I Will WaitThe example of the supermarket “express checkout” counter reminds us that our tolerance for waiting depends upon the perceived value of what I am waiting for. Special checkout counters were originally provided because customers with only a few items felt resentful at having to wait a long time for what was seen as a simple transaction. Customers with a full cart of groceries were much more inclined to tolerate lines. Airlines, too, have discovered this principle and provide separate (fast-moving) lines for those with simple transactions (such as seat-selection), medium-difficulty transactions (baggage check-in) and complex transactions (ticket purchase or modification). Specialization by task does not necessarily reduce the aggregate amount of waiting in the system: however, it serves well to allocate the waiting among the customer base. That perceived value affects tolerance for waits can be demonstrated by our common experience in restaurants: we will accept a much longer waiting time at a high-cuisine facility than at a “greasy spoon.” In universities, there is an old rule of thumb that if the teacher is delayed, “You wait ten minutes for an Assistant Professor, fifteen minutes for an Associate Professor and twenty for a Full Professor” (or some such variant). This old saw illustrates well the principle that tolerance for waits depends upon perceived value of service (perhaps with the emphasis on the perception).It follows from this principle that waiting for something of little value can be intolerable. This is amply illustrated by the eagerness with which airline passengers leap from their seats when the airline reaches the gate, even though they know that it will take time to unload all the passengers ahead of them, and that they may well have to wait for their baggage to arrive. The same passenger who has sat patiently for some hours during the flight suddenly exhibits an intolerance for an extra minute or two to disembark, and a fury at an extra few minutes of delayed baggage. The point, of course, is that the service (the flight) is over, and waiting to get out (when there is no more value to be received) is more aggravating. A similar syndrome is exhibited at hotel checkout counters. Just as pre-process waits are felt to be longer than in-process waits of the same time duration, so are post-process waits: these, in fact, feel longest of all.Proposition 8: Solo Waits Feel Longer Than Group Waits One of the remarkable syndromes to observe in waiting lines is to see individuals sitting (or standing) next to each other without talking or otherwise interacting. Then, an announcement of a delay is made, and the individuals suddenly turn to each other to express their exasperation, wonder684-064The Psychology of Waiting Lines collectively what is going on, and console each other. What this illustrates is that there is some form of comfort in group waiting rather than waiting alone.This syndrome is evidently in effect in amusement parks such as Disneyland, or in some waiting lines to buy concert tickets when a sense of group community develops and the line turns into almost a service encounter in its own right: part of the fun and part of the service. Whatever the service organizations can do to promote the sense of group waiting rather than isolating each individual will tend to increase the tolerance for waiting time.ConclusionsThe propositions presented here are by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of all the psychological considerations involved in managing customers’ acceptance of waiting time. Not discussed, for example, is the importance of explicit apologies and apologetic tones in preserving the customers’ sense of “valued client” status. Similarly unanalyzed are cultural and class differences in tolerance for waiting (it is said of the English that if they see a line they’ll join it). I hope, however, that the managerial reader will have gained a greater appreciation both for the psychological complexity of queues, and for the fact that the psychological experience of waiting can be managed. The propositions given here can be researched, not only by academics for their general applicability, but also by managers for application in specific service situations. The constant theme of this article has been that the waiting experience is context-specific. By learning to research and understand the psychological context of their own waiting lines, managers can have a significant impact upon their customers’ satisfaction with the service encounter.。
利丰哈佛商学院案例中文版
案例：利丰公司思考与小组讨论题：1、利丰公司的优势有哪些？采用的战略和经营模式有什么特征?2、 在哪些方面使得利丰公司的能力或优势得到了更好的发挥? 当时所采用的战略有哪些风险?3、你给冯国经和冯国纶先生的建议是什么?利丰公司案例“我不是一个互联网人，我是一个生意人，”利丰贸易公司的董事总经理冯国纶（William Fung）诙谐地说，“我已经51岁了，不仅是互联网时代的一个老人，简直就是活化石了。
”1但是穿着美国鹰派黑色粗斜纹布T恤衫，冯看起来更像一个新经济的企业家，而不像他所说的那样，一个旧经济的遗老。
当然也不是，这是他和个哥哥冯经国（Victor Fung）新组建的在线公司，和一个典型的互联网创业公司没什么两样，要知道它的母公司创建于清朝末年，有着96年历史，然而，在2000年8月，这个B2B电子商务门户网站试运行的前夕，冯国纶用混杂着就经济和新经济行话的语言讲述了发生在利丰公司的变化：大约三、四年前，Victor和我讨论了互联网及其对我们的影响。
我们的出发点是我们应该自我保护地看待互联网：它是不是会使人们不用中间商而直接交易从而使我们被亚马逊化呢？2是否会有人把所有买家和工程的信息都发到网上？经过了许多研究，我们认识了互联网供应链管理，而人们也不会不用中间商。
关键是掌握了就经济的诀窍而又能接纳新经济的思维。
第二天就要召开新闻发布会了，冯国纶对整个集团的业绩和的前景很有信心。
但是他知道还有一些重要的问题没有解决：在离线业务和在线业务之间会不会存在渠道上的冲突，或者蚕食彼此的生意？一旦创业公司在明年启动了，时常会有什么样的反应呢？到底电子商务最终会怎样改变他有着近百年历史的家族企业呢？公司背景31906年，冯国纶的祖父Fung Pak-Liu和他的合伙人Li To-Ming在中国广州创建了利丰公司，当时是一间在中国南部向海外商人出口的贸易公司。
在20世纪20年代和30年代，公司业务多样化并且进入了仓储和手工艺品制造等行业。
香港利丰公司（LiFung）供应链管理案例
香港利丰公司(Li&Fung)供应链管理案例案例分析（20分）利丰公司(Li&Fung)是香港最大的出口贸易公司，该公司一直致力于供应链管理的创新，对上层行政部门而言，供应链哲理是一个日益重要的问题。
为了了解该公司的供应链管理战略的实施情况，哈佛商学院的自由编辑琼.玛格丽塔对公司董事长进行了一次访谈。
在这次访谈中，利丰公司的董事长维克托.冯不仅说明了供应链管理所包含的道理，而且对利丰公司逐渐降低成本、引导潮流以使顾客方便地从市场上买到产品的具体实践作了说明。
1906年，维克托.冯的祖父在中国南方创办了利丰公司，这是中国第一家自己的出口公司(那时，中国的贸易被外国商业机构控制)。
在20世纪70年代初，维克托.冯在哈佛商学院任教，他的弟弟威廉(William)刚刚获得哈佛MBA学位。
这两个年轻人被他们的父亲召回以振兴家族公司。
从那时起，兄弟俩领导着利丰公司经历了一系列的转变。
在哈佛商学院的自由编辑琼.玛格丽塔的访谈中，维克托.冯描述了利丰公司是如何完成下列三个转变的，即从采购代理商到供应链管理者，从旧经济到新经济，从传统的中国家族式企业到不断创新的上市公司。
我们来看一看利丰公司这家香港最大的出口贸易公司是如何在供应链管理方面进行创新的。
作为它的客户(主要是美国和欧洲的零售商)的代表，利丰公司和全球数千家供应商打交道，而且这个供应网一直在扩展，公司的产品包括衣服、玩具、服装、配件、旅行袋等。
维克托.冯把公司看成是一种集中于核心业务的新型企业的一部分。
这种新型企业在分销程序技术上采用香港的经验，公司具有强大的信息集中服务功能，包括产品开发、货源、金融、运输、处理和后勤。
问:你能介绍一下利丰公司目前的供应链管理同你祖父在1906年创立的传统商业之间的区别吗?答:90年前，我的祖父在中国广东省开办这家公司时，那时候还是清朝，他获利的资本是他会说英语。
在那个年代，从西方乘船到中国要3个月，寄一封信也要寄1个月，中国工厂里没有人能说英语，美国商人不能说汉语。
哈佛商学院经典案例分析
哈佛商学院经典案例分析哈佛商学院是世界最著名的商学院之一，早先名为“哈佛大学工商管理研究所，是常春藤联盟商学院之一。
哈佛商学院认为：一个成功的总经理应该是一个全才，至少应具备三种技能，即：技术技能，人事技能和概念技能，这三种技能可以排除特殊品性的必要，也可提供正确看待和处理管理过程的有效方法。
“认真思考什么才是衡量你人生的正确标尺。
我总结出，上帝衡量我的人生的尺子并不是美元，而是那些我曾经影响过他们人生的人们。
”——克莱顿·克里斯滕森人在遇到问题的时候，往往急于找到答案或者寻求帮助得到答案。
而往往忽略的其中最重要的关键，就是如何思考得到答案。
管理学教育我们，学会如何思考，然后自己找到答案才是最好的处理问题的方法哈佛商学院毕业前最后一课堂上，教授要求学生们把这些理论的聚焦镜对准自己，并针对下列三个问题寻找令人信服的答案：1. 我怎样确保我在职业生涯中会快乐？2. 我怎样确保我和我的配偶及家人的关系将成为一种持久的快乐源泉？3. 我怎样确保我一定不会进监狱呢？尽管最后一个问题听起来像在开玩笑，但并非如此。
当年罗兹学者班32个同学就有2个进过监狱。
安然（Enron）的Jeff Skilling也曾是我在哈佛商学院的同班同学。
他们都曾是很好的人，但他们人生中的一些事情把他们引上了歧途。
1、管理是最崇高的职业弗雷德里克·赫茨伯格（Frederick Herzberg）的幸福论认为，人生中最有力的激励因素不是金钱，而是那些学习的机会、在责任中成长的机会、为他人做贡献的机会、以及成就被认可的机会。
我成为学者以前，自己经营着一个公司。
有一天，我想象着我的一个经理早上踌躇满志地来工作，10小时后，带着不受赏识、沮丧的感觉开车回家。
我在想，她这种感觉会怎样深深地影响她与孩子们的相处。
然后，我的想象快进到了另一天，她带着更好的自我感觉回家——觉得学到了很多东西，因做成了很有价值的事情而被认可，以及在某个重要项目的成功中扮演了重要的角色。